What's an "entry-level" bike?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Joffey

Big Dosser
Location
Yorkshire
I thought Entry Level was a bike that was cheap but decent enough to ride a good distance on. So maybe not something from Argos that weights 20kg but something maybe costing £400, like a Carerra from Halfords (my first bike).

A bike with proper parts but cheap.
 

Ming the Merciless

There is no mercy
Photo Winner
Location
Inside my skull
Entry level means that whilst you might place top ten on it you will not win the TDF.
 

I like Skol

A Minging Manc...
Oh dear, my steed is a Giant Escape 1. At £499, I do not even scrape into entry level .... I shall crawl away quietly,

Even worse, Mrs @BoldonLad has a Liv at only £399.... I am such a cheapskate!
That is nothing compared to my shame! My son's 'entry level' red Triban 3 was ONLY £200 and was further reduced to £150 a week or two after we bought his. How will I ever explain this to him when he is older? He may just disown me....... :cry:
 

Tin Pot

Guru
It seems bikes under the £1k category are "entry-level". What makes them so? So what if they have a sora drivetrain instead of something "higher" up?

I would go so far as to say the more expensive bikes are "entry-level" because they are (I think?) more comfortable? The frames are smoother to ride, more bump absorption, etc. The comfortable ride would suit the starter bike rider.

In contrast, the cheaper bikes are for more experienced riders since they will ride everywhere, lock it up on the street, and so on. And take messengers for example, their bikes all seem "entry-level" but I think they are well thought out, reliable, reasonably cheap to replace if anything goes wrong. Those guys have it sussed. I'm hankering after the cheapest bike I can get away with, not the most expensive that I can afford.

Entry-level bikes is the language of journalists. That's got me thinking about "entry level" journalism. :smile:

Marketing
 

bpsmith

Veteran
Interesting stats. Up to 1993 all the winning bikes weighed over 20lb, that's what would today be described as disappointingly heavy on anything costing seven or eight hundred quid.
Lots of other things were acceptable prior to 1993 also. Would we like to go back to that, I think not. :smile:
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
MichaelW2 said:
I regard "entry level" as a step up from BSO, a bike good enough to ride everyday.

That's pretty much my definition. If it is sufficiently well built to actually be functional, and will get from A to B without some essential part failing mid-journey, or going out of adjustment mid-journey, then it's entry level.
Unfortunately, cycling is an activity that is afflicted with a very high level of snobbery and one-upmanship, where a lot of riders who have spent serious money on their bikes, look down their noses at everybody else who rides something cheaper than theirs.
I have ridden thousands and thousands of miles on basic steel bikes weighing 30-35 lbs and costing today's equivalent of around £200-250 new. I just laugh at all the "serious" cyclists who refuse to use anything less than £2/3/4 thousand carbon fibre machines but are absolutely terrified to actually leave them unattended anywhere even for a few minutes in case they get smashed up or stolen.
 

Lozz360

Veteran
Location
Oxfordshire
That is nothing compared to my shame! My son's 'entry level' red Triban 3 was ONLY £200 and was further reduced to £150 a week or two after we bought his. How will I ever explain this to him when he is older? He may just disown me....... :cry:
You can expect a call from Social Services!
 
Top Bottom